I responded in another thread about the Astros top 5 OPS guys that they
showed on TV the other night. Not sure how many ABs you need to make
that list, but check this out...

Astrso versus Cards, top 5 OPS
minimum 400 AB

Berkman 1022
Biggio 723
Taveras 676 (This is amazing from here on down...)
Everett 642
Ausmus 588

avg 730

Pujols 1104
Rolen 916
Encarnacion 778
Wilson (!) 720
Ekstein 678

avg 837

Over 100 points higher.

NOW... reduce the number of minimum ABs to 300:

Berkman 1022
Ensberg 852 (with a 230 BA, Huff is 778, with 185 ABs, 245 BA)
Lamb 845
Burke 800
Biggio 723

avg 848

Pujols 1104
Rolen 916
Edmonds 831
Encarnacion 778
Wilson (!) 720

avg 870

Only Berkman and Biggio (!) make both Astros lists.
Only Edmonds gets added to the Cards list.

And only 22 points difference.

They have been playing with their best offensive players, for the most
part. We have not. With all of the "plug and play" guys we have that
play multiple positions, we still have not played our best offensive
players. To do so would put Berkman in RF, Burke in LF, Lamb at 1st.

Pretty amazing that Ensberg has a 852 OPS with a 230 batting average.

Steve Cutchen wrote:


Yeah, and that's why I'm still surprised so many Astro fans (here
anyway) were so happy to see him gone. His OPS as an Astro (390 AB -- so
almost enough for both lists you kindly put together) was .714. Not to
mention that he was one of the leaders for BA with RISP, etc.


Not really when you consider how many walks he has. The OBP part of it
weighs a walk the same as a single. And, to Ensberg's credit, he does
get more than his share of extra base hits. I think OPS can be just as
misleading as BA for both of those reasons (i.e., OBP inflation from
walks -- which I'm not discounting in terms of importance at all -- and
inflation of SLG from an inconsistent hitter who gets a large number
of XBH).

In article <2ZdPg.3506$LH2.2141@tornado.texas.rr.com>, chico chupacabra
<no@way.jose> wrote:


Well, 714 is a pretty crappy OPS. To me, you really need to be in the
800s or above to be considered a decent hitter. About 900 and above
are guys to be feared.

Here's the current NL list:

1.*A Pujols StL 1.104
2.*R Howard PHI 1.085
3.*L Berkman HOU 1.022
4.*M Cabrera FLA 1.011
5.* B Bonds SF .991
6.* C Beltran NYM .990
7.* M Holliday COL .952
8.* N Johnson WSH .951
8.* A LaRoche ATL .951
10.* A Soriano WSH .940
11.* G Atkins COL .936
12.* J Bay PIT .933
13.*C Delgado NYM .931
14.*S Rolen STL .916
15.*D Wright NYM .910



I like the idea of OPS... OPS is basically "bases per AB". The
difference is that calculating bases per AB would require a whole new
dataset. Kind of an OBP time the average number of bases per each time
you get on base.

But it turns out if you plot OPS versus actual bases per AB, you get a
straight line. So while OPS may not have a direct physical
significance, it is still a good relative measurement of base
productivity.

Ensberg's walks and XBHs would be very valuable if he was getting
driven in by someone... heh.

Steve Cutchen wrote:


Overall, sure; for the current crop of Astros, though, it's "stellar."
The Astros didn't upgrade by calling up -- and keeping on the roster --
Jason Lane.


I have no disagreement over that. The only problem is Houston doesn't
have very many of those.


Or if he had (a) someone behind him in the line up effective enough that
he'd get more pitches to swing at, (b) more runners on base ahead of him
to drive in, or (c) both.